Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
People also read
Research Article
Genetic Diversity of Amaranthus dubius Mart. (Khedha) Used Tribal Place in Chhattisgarh, India
Deepika Chandravanshi, P. K. Sharma, C. Banjare and Deepa ChandravanshiIdentification, khedha, Raipur
Published Online : 31 Oct 2018
Research Article
KNM 1638 - A High Yielding Gall Midge Resistant Early Duration PJTSAU Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Variety Suitable for Telangana State
Sreedhar Siddi, Ch. Damodar Raju, Y. Chandramohan, T. Shobha Rani, V. Thirumala Rao, S. Omprakash, N. Rama Gopala Varma, R. Jagadeeshwar, T. Kiran Babu, D. Anil, M. Sreedhar, R. Umareddy, P. Jagan Mohan Rao, M. Umadevi and P. Raghu Rami ReddyAmylose, blast, gall midge, KNM 1638, early duration
Published Online : 31 Jul 2022
Research Article
Study of Apple Varieties in High-Density Plantation under Cold Dry Temperate Conditions of Kinnaur
Arun Kumar, Gopal Singh, Vijay Kumar, Meena Kumari and Sushil DhimanJeromine, productivity, red velox, m9, red cap valtod
Published Online : 30 Apr 2022
Research Article
The Role of Parkland for Conservation of Useful Plant Species Diversity in Arba Minch, Southern Ethiopia
Mulugeta KebebewParkland, paradise lodge, diversity, useful plant, Ethiopia
Published Online : 13 May 2019
Research Article
Impact of Heat Stress on Physiological Characteristics, Blood Constituents and HSP Genes Expression in Mithun during Summer Season
Homseng Chowlu, V. K. Vidyarthi and S. MukherjeeTemperature, glucose, SGOT, SGPT, HSP70, HSP90, cortisol
Published Online : 18 Jan 2023
Review Article
Astrologically Designed Medicinal Gardens of India
Maneesha S. R., P. Vidula, V. A. Ubarhande and E. B. ChakurkarVedic astrology, astral garden, celestial garden, zodiac garden
Published Online : 14 Apr 2021